Notes from Megameeting 10th December 2007


All the discussion at this meeting was conducted by chat, so the following transcript of the meeting (with a few typos corrected) is complete.

KatiaThomaz >> (All): hi, david
David Giaretta >> (All): Hi Katia
David Giaretta >> (All): I've turned the video off
KatiaThomaz >> (All): i´ve just completed my answers
David Giaretta >> (All): I'll update the spreadsheet  soon
candida fenton >> (All): hi everyone
Mark Conrad >> (All): Hello!
BruceAmbacher >> (All): Good day.  My apologies for missing the last two sessions.
David Giaretta >> (All): We will be missing a few people including Simon., Helen
David Giaretta >> (All): Hi Bruce - I've also missed a few recently - too many meetings abroad
Barbara Sierman >> (All): hello all
David Giaretta >> (All): I put a spreadsheet on the WIki but I realise that I left a few columns hidden - they can be unhidden using Excel
David Giaretta >> (All): There have been a few updates today - I'll update the spreadsheet later
Barbara Sierman >> (All): interesting to see that the first questions has a lot of answers but later in the document there are less answers. When I speak for myself, this was because I found the decision more problematic than in the beginning of the document
David Giaretta >> (All): Yes, - also one noticed more overlaps. I think we need more people to omplete it and then we'll have a reasonable picture.
Mark Conrad >> (All): I think the fact that we find so many of the requirements problematic means we need to clarify their texts if we hope to make an international standard.
JohnGarrett >> (All): Hi all,  I've also left the later ones without an answer.  In my case I've been doing a few at a time starting at the beginning.  
Mark Conrad >> (All): David, Can the mandatory matrix for A. and C. be posted so that those of us who have completed B can begin working on the other two sets of requirements?
David Giaretta >> (All): Yes,  I think there are definitely problems
David Giaretta >> (All): Yes, I'll get the other sections posted in the same way
Mark Conrad >> (All): Thank you.
David Giaretta >> (All): The notes from the last meeting show that people were discussing B1.7 - is that right?
Barbara Sierman >> (All): As discussed before, we are speaking about different archives, with different material and different relations with the producers. This might lead to a confusion when answering
Mark Conrad >> (All): Barbara, It would be helpful if we could design the standard in such a way that it would apply across the different types of repositories.
Barbara Sierman >> (All): Mark, agreed, but as several discussions showed, people have different situations in mind when answering the questions. The future users of this standard will have the same problem. The Evidence field could also contains some descriptions of real life examples, may that will help
Mark Conrad >> (All): Real life examples are very helpful.
David Giaretta >> (All): We talked about the range of archives in the meeting in Berlin. One area of flexibility was the definition of Designated Community. There may be other critical elements.
David Giaretta >> (All): ANother interesting point in the discussion was the test audits - which is related to the real-life examples
Barbara Sierman >> (All): Did you also distinguish to the material or producer David?
BruceAmbacher >> (All): Perhaps we can use annexes as we did in OAIS to illustrate how a variety of repositories can/do adhere to the standard.
David Giaretta >> (All): However CRL withdrew the audit reports from their web site -  they will re-appear in a while
David Giaretta >> (All): Barbara - not sure I understand what you mean
Barbara Sierman >> (All): David, you mentioned the Designated Community, that is in a way the end-user, so I was wondering whether you also thought about the beginning of the stream, the Producer etc
David Giaretta >> (All): Good point -  for example the difference between Web archiving and project archiving
Barbara Sierman >> (All): Yes exactly
David Giaretta >> (All): Does anyone else have any test audit material?
Mark Conrad >> (All): David, What do you mean by test audit material?
David Giaretta >> (All): Mark I mean results of going through, say, the TRAC checklist with a real archive
Barbara Sierman >> (All): The CRL reports were done to test the audit method, not whether those archives met the requirements, may be that is the reason they withdrew them
David Giaretta >> (All): Yes - and I guess I was wanting to learn from those audits
JohnGarrett >> (All): Actually, we are currently working on a test audit at NSSDC.  It's just an internal look.  Don't know when that will be available for dissemination.
David Giaretta >> (All): You've put your finger on the problem - people will not want the details made public
Barbara Sierman >> (All): Davbid, do you mean the evaluation of the method? Or of the results?
Barbara Sierman >> (All): Sorry, David
RobertDowns >> (All): We have started going through the check list, but from a perspective of identifying areas for improvement
David Giaretta >> (All): Barbara I meant trying to learn about problems with the checklist, and also getting some real life examples
David Giaretta >> (All): Robert - do you mean areas of improvement for the checklist?
Barbara Sierman >> (All): As the KB was one of the CRL candidates, I have been involved in this audit
David Giaretta >> (All): Barbara - what was your impression?
David Giaretta >> (All): you have the results?
RobertDowns >> (All): We have been looking at areas to improve our policies, procedures, and operational capabilities to comply with the check list
David Giaretta >> (All): Robert - so taht would provide some real life examples
Barbara Sierman >> (All): That it was very difficult to know what was the right answer to the question: at that time the Evidence field was not there so we needed to invent how we could prove it. Also the fact that there were several interpretations of the questions possible made it difficult.
RobertDowns >> (All): Yes, David, but the examples might not be ready for a couple of months
David Giaretta >> (All): Barbara - Can you remember which questions were ambiguous?
Barbara Sierman >> (All): The discussion afterwards with the auditers was very useful.
David Giaretta >> (All): Who were the auditors?
Barbara Sierman >> (All): David, I can look that up when I'm in the KB (I'm now at home)
RobertDowns >> (All): The ambiguity of questions has made our effort difficult as well
Mark Conrad >> (All): David, A quick look at the spreadsheet shows many questions that appear to be ambiguous.
Barbara Sierman >> (All): And also the fact that it is OAIS based and that not everyone involved has a thorough knowledge of OAIS
RobertDowns >> (All): David, we are using the check list to do an internal self-assessment
David Giaretta >> (All): I guess the question if whether we are making the questions clearer where they were ambiguous in what we have done. The spreadsheet should allow us to focus on metrics where there are either differences in interpretation or differences in opinion
David Giaretta >> (All): Barbara - yes, my impression in talking to some people was that that was an issue.
David Giaretta >> (All): ...I guess this is similar to the issue of how certifiers are accredited
RobertDowns >> (All): I believe that what we are doing is improving some of the questions, which is helpful for me to do our self-assessment
David Giaretta >> (All): Robert - that's good to know!
Barbara Sierman >> (All): If this could became a useful tool for selfassesment, we have done a good job, then we need to go on for the ISO standard
David Giaretta >> (All): There were a number of other issues that came up in Berlin taht might be useful to mantion
David Giaretta >> (All): ...mention..
JohnGarrett >> (All): At NSSDC, we are looking at it as a tool for self-assessment.
JohnGarrett >> (All): We are also using a subset of it to have our Resident Archives (domain specific space science archives) do self-assessments
David Giaretta >> (All): Talking of which --- that was an issue in Berlin. I argues that some organisations would use it for self-audit but for others, IF their funders used certification to decide whether to continue funding then it would become very important for the archives those funders fund
David Giaretta >> (All): .. oops - bad English
David Giaretta >> (All): We also spoke about the Wiki of the RLG group and whether to open it up
Barbara Sierman >> (All): yes, that is a heavy responsibility
JohnGarrett >> (All): I think as we move into the future when we have a recognized ISO standard, there will be more economic force behind the audit from our funders. 
David Giaretta >> (All): There seemed to be a general feeling that the RLG wiki (which is hosted at my organisation, should be opened up.
Barbara Sierman >> (All): David, you mean that would lead to more input?
David Giaretta >> (All): Barbara - I think the point was that lots of things were discussed in the RLG group that others don't know about.
Barbara Sierman >> (All): ok
David Giaretta >> (All): ...I think there is enough overlap here but there are other groups working in this area because of perceived weaknesses
David Giaretta >> (All): .....hence opening up the RLG wiki might help with that background
David Giaretta >> (All): .....One thing I remembered was the spreadsheet that allowed us to view the metrics in different groupings and in hierarchies. It would be worth de-doing that
JohnGarrett >> (All): Since there is the perceived weakness in the certification area, hopefully we can get a draft of our checklist out in a reasonably short time.  
Mark Conrad >> (All): Switching topics slightly. It would seem to me that once everyone who intends to fill in the mandatory matrix has done so we should identify thos requirements where there is unanimous or near-unanimous consensus. For those where the consensus is that they are mandatory we should declare victory and include them in our final document. For those where there is consensus that they are not mandatory we should determine if they should be removed from the final document. For those with Q's we should determine how we modify them or elin=minate them.
David Giaretta >> (All): Precisely
Barbara Sierman >> (All): Mark, I think it is also important to look at the comments people posted
RobertDowns >> (All): The comments imply qualifications on the votes as well as identifying needs for improvement
Mark Conrad >> (All): Barbara, I agree. If we are to develop an international standard we need to eliminate as much ambiguity from the document as possible.
David Giaretta >> (All): And I must admit that I need to review my votes  - I just re-read the instructions 
Barbara Sierman >> (All): December will be a difficult month for meetings, could we say that we will have filled in the matrix next week or so? Will there be meetings on the 24th and the 31 December? I willnot be available then.
David Giaretta >> (All): The instructions Marking with Y means accepting the requirement as mandatory as it is now expressed; 
David Giaretta >> (All): Barbara - yes we need everyone to complete the matrix and then we can look at the results.
David Giaretta >> (All): I think we can probably cancel the meetings 24 and 31 Dec - Is that OK?
Barbara Sierman >> (All): yes
RobertDowns >> (All): Yes
JohnGarrett >> (All): Yes
Mark Conrad >> (All): yes
Marie >> (All): yes
KatiaThomaz >> (All): yes
BruceAmbacher >> (All): Yes
candida fenton >> (All): Yes
David Giaretta >> (All): SHould we call it a day and ensure we have all filled in the matrix then meet again on Jan 7th?
Barbara Sierman >> (All): Yes, this might give some the opportunity to add some comments...
Mark Conrad >> (All): Do you mean just the matrix for B or also fro A and C?
David Giaretta >> (All): By the way, I'll be over in Washington (DC) for the DCC conference - travelling tomorrow
David Giaretta >> (All): Mark - good point - I'll get A and C put up in the same way and we should fill all in
Marie >> (All): So, all are due next week?
Mark Conrad >> (All): No, by January 7th.
David Giaretta >> (All): Well I guess my the end of the year - so we can start the New Year with a bang!
Marie >> (All): :) OK
JohnGarrett >> (All): Will we continue from B1.7 next week?
David Giaretta >> (All): We cancelled 24th Dec - meet again 7th Jan.
RobertDowns >> (All): next Monday is Dec 17
Mark Conrad >> (All): Do we want to continue to review the requirements one by one or do we want to use the matrix as a guide to where to focus our limited cycles?
David Giaretta >> (All): OH - good poing - wrong page on my diary!!
David Giaretta >> (All): ..point..
JohnGarrett >> (All): I think we go point by point and use the matrix to make quick decisions to keep, modify or delete the item.
David Giaretta >> (All): Mark - I agree with that - need to focus. However there is some tidying up to do - we had a couple of outstanding issues
Mark Conrad >> (All): Ok. So B1.7 next week?
JohnGarrett >> (All): Sure start there and hopefully march through the next several items during the meeting.
RobertDowns >> (All): Yes
David Giaretta >> (All): OK - sounds good.
Barbara Sierman >> (All): ok
Mark Conrad >> (All): Alright. See you next week!
Barbara Sierman >> (All): See you!
Marie >> (All): bye
David Giaretta >> (All): SO we should finihs all metrics as nancy kept reminding us, and have a complete matrix for Jan
BruceAmbacher >> (All): I have a doctor's appointment and may be a bit late to the webchat
David Giaretta >> (All): Bye bye
JohnGarrett >> (All): Bye, see you next week.  Or maybe see David this week.
KatiaThomaz >> (All): i´m not sure i will be present next meeting. bye.

-- DavidGiaretta - 10 Dec 2007

Topic revision: r1 - 2007-12-10 - DavidGiaretta
This site is powered by the TWiki collaboration platform Powered by PerlCopyright © 2008-2019 by the contributing authors. All material on this collaboration platform is the property of the contributing authors.
Ideas, requests, problems regarding TWiki? Send feedback